I realize that most of the individuals who frequent this forum are either "conservatives" or Austrian School "libertarians" who, as such, don't have to be told that there are certain "liberals" and "progressives" who don't necessarily have their best interests in mind.

Nevertheless, I assume at least some of the many hundreds of "guests" here are left-leaning independents and relative newcomers to the world of politics. It is primarily to them that I address the following.

If Ralph Nader is a classic example of a true and sincere liberal who, as such, is genuinely concerned with eliminating poverty, Barack Obama is a classic example of both (a) a smug, manipulative, insincere “limousine liberal” and (b) a foundation-funded “poverty pimp” whose only real concern is with protecting the vested interests of the ruling-class oligarchs pulling his strings, while fooling his gullible followers with carefully crafted, euphemism-laced rhetoric into believing all the while that he’s serving their interests.

With particular regard to elite “foundations,” it seems that most people are woefully unaware of the alarming extent to which these supposedly “benevolent” institutions have shaped the horribly and increasingly dysfunctional social and political realities that have grown up around us in recent decades.

We have already seen Obama in his role as a community organizer for the Gamaliel foundation. We must stress that Obama’s role as a foundation operative begins here, but certainly does not end when he goes off to law school. No indeed: the vocation of being a foundation operative constitutes Obama’s family business. His mother was a Ford Foundation operative, and most of the jobs Obama has ever held were with foundations. When it came time for Obama to start going to church, he unfailingly chose a congregation where Ford Foundation race theory is projected onto the plane of heaven and eternity in the form of the provocateur religion of Black liberation theology.

Before we go any further with Obama's own story, it will be useful to offer an overview of the strategic orientation of US foundation operations during this timeframe. Foundations represent an extremely important part of the social control mechanisms which prevail today in the United States.

The foundations are all the more effective in their chosen work of social control, engineering and political manipulation because many people are simply unaware of the immense scale of their operations, even though every broadcast on public television or National Public Radio is always accompanied by a litany of the foundations which have financed that program. One way to understand the pervasive influence of foundations is to say that they are as omnipresent in this country today as the CIA and the FBI were during the Cold War. This is partly because many intelligence community operations of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s have morphed into foundations under the auspices of President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which privatized many of the existing spook activities. Many naïve people still think of foundations as being humanitarian or charitable institutions concerned with education, health, and the improvement of the human condition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like Henry Ford himself, the Pew family and many other oligarchical clans whose family fortunes have been transformed into foundations harbored fascist sympathies during the 1920s and 1930s. Today, they are overwhelmingly multicultural, politically correct, Malthusian, and neo-Luddite in their ideology. They hate science and technology because these are seen as avenues of upward social mobility for the lower orders, and as a threat to continued financier domination. Perhaps more than any other agency, the foundations have engaged in the strangulation and perversion of the American spirit over these past four decades in particular.

The late Christopher Lasch, in his classic study The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1995), notes the important role of class prejudice in forming elite attitudes in this country today. He describes how well-to-do liberals, when confronted with resistance to their ideas of social engineering, “betray the venomous hatred that lies not far beneath the smiling face of upper-middle-class benevolence,” and turn on those who “just don’t get it” (Lasch, 28). The result is an academic culture which appears to be contemptuous of the human potential of vast strata of the American population. This is the kind of mentality which we can see in Obama's infamous San Francisco “Bittergate” rant. This is a condensed version of the elitist and left authoritarian mental world of the pro-oligarchical foundation bureaucrats. In order to understand Obama's mentality and the decisions he might make as the head of the future regime, we are therefore obliged to review some critical points about the recent historical record of the Ford Foundation and its satellites.

Most discussions of Obama's career as what he calls a “community organizer” are crippled by a total lack of historical background on the Ford Foundation and its satellites, and further by any comprehension of the goals of foundation-funded social engineering. Because Obama is so totally a product of the Ford Foundation and the foundation world of which it is the center, we will have to repeat several times in this volume that the main purpose of these foundations by the latter half of the 20th century was to exercise social control, so as to perpetuate the uncontested political domination of Wall Street financial interests over the legitimate aspirations of the various ethnic groups, economic strata, and other components of the American population.

The watchword of the Ford Foundation is Divide and Conquer. The goal of its projects is always to play one group in the population against some other group so as to create conflict, strife, and division, so that the Wall Street interests can emerge unscathed and triumph. The individual foundation grant officers involved in this process may well be motivated by some hallucination of Marxism, multiculturalism, or political correctness, but it is not these values which the foundations finally serve: their goal is to disrupt and abort the emergence of anything approaching a politically conscious united front of the American people capable of demanding radical economic reforms, and especially to ward off a revival of the New Deal, new political formations based on economic populism, a Marshall Plan for the cities, including the urban ethnic minority populations, and so forth.

POVERTY PIMPS FOR THE FOUNDATIONS

When Obama says that he was a community organizer, it would be far more accurate to say that he was a poverty pimp for the Ford Foundation network, a paid race-monger whose job it was to organize politically naïve and desperate groups on the south side of Chicago into corporatist, dead-end, fragmented, parochial projects from which they would derive little or no benefit, and the goal of which was simply to use up enough of their lives in futility until they dropped out altogether in despair. The only exception to this was the use of these community control or local control or community action advocacy groups as political pawns against certain state and local political factions, or as battering rams against other groups of working people, above all trade unions made up of municipal employees, especially teachers. This is where Obama learned to support “merit pay” as a weapon against teachers unions.

In order to understand the foundation world, it is necessary to recall that these foundations generally represent the family fortunes of industrialists and businessmen of the 19th and early 20th centuries -- the robber barons -- which have been placed into tax-free status as charitable trusts, all the while perpetuating the urge for power of their founders. The foundations represent family fortunes or fondi which have attained a kind of oligarchical immortality by transcending the mere biological existence of the individuals and families who created them, and becoming permanent institutions destined to endure indefinitely.

These foundations once upon a time had to maintain some credibility by funding hospitals, universities, libraries, scientific research, and other projects which often had genuine social utility. Shortly after the Second World War, there began a trend towards social engineering and social action on the part of the foundations. The leader in this was the Ford Foundation, which, because it was the largest and wealthiest of the US foundations, quickly became the flagship and opinion leader for the other foundations. Foundation officers represent the very essence of the financier oligarch mentality, and one result of this is that they generally all do the same thing at the same time in their respective fields of specialization. Because of this, control over the Ford Foundation represents a social control mechanism of great strength, which has been a decisive force in shaping the decline of US society and national life, especially over the last 40 years.

Dean Rusk had served Averill Harriman and Dean Acheson during the Truman administration, and then became president of the Rockefeller Foundation in the late 1950s; he ‘once described Ford’s influence on other foundations: What the “fat boy in the canoe does,” he said, “makes a difference to everybody else.” And Ford’s influence was never stronger than after it adopted the cause of social change. Waldemar Nielsen’s monumental studies of foundations, published in 1972 and 1985, only strengthened the Ford effect, for Nielsen celebrated activist philanthropy and berated those foundations that had not yet converted to the cause. “As a result,” recalls Richard Larry, president of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, “a number of foundations said: ‘If this is what the foundation world is doing and what the experts say is important, we should move in that direction, too.’” The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, for example, funded the National Welfare Rights Organization--at the same that the organization was demonstrating against Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York. The Carnegie Corporation pumped nearly $20 million into various left-wing advocacy groups during the 1970s.’ (Heather Mac Donald, “The Billions of Dollars That Made Things Worse,” City Journal, Autumn 1996)

AGGRESSIVE FOUNDATION ACTIVISM OF THE LATE 1960s

In the second half of the 1960s, the social ferment generated by defeat in Vietnam, the student movement, the antiwar movement, the civil rights movement, and the gathering economic decline of the country spurred the foundations into action. With unerring oligarchical class instinct, they could see the grave danger that might be represented for financier domination by the possible fusion in a united front of the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the labor movement, and the student movement. Their answer to this was to promote and fund organization forms that were so narrow, so fragmented, and so parochial, that they prevented the necessary cooperation among these movements, thus blocking them from attaining most of their principal goals….

Right-wing commentators…are generally incapable of analyzing the real motivations for what the foundations do; they usually attribute the catastrophic results of foundation social engineering to some misguided instincts to do good. Nothing could be further from the truth: the goal of the foundations is to maintain the brutal regime of finance capital, and this presupposes that there be no national coalition capable of expressing a national interest in contradiction to the dictates of the Wall Street financiers. The rightwingers are therefore forced to make up fantastic stories of how Marxists have crept in to the temples of finance capital by the dark of the moon, so as to advance their work of revolution. In reality incendiary race baiting and pseudo-revolutionary and hyper-revolutionary rhetoric are most often the stock in trade of the foundation-funded political operative, who gets paid good money to inflame the mutual animosities and resentments of groups that ought to be uniting against Wall Street, rather than squabbling with each other for some petty and futile local concession. Barack Hussein Obama is precisely one of these foundation-funded political operatives or poverty pimps….

FORD FOUNDATION COMMUNITY ACTION AND THE 1960s GHETTO RIOTS

The beginnings of the local control-community control-poverty pimp apparatus of domestic social engineering and counterinsurgency goes back to the Ford Foundation’s Gray Areas Project of the 1960s, which was spearheaded by an obscure and highly influential Ford Foundation operative named Paul Ylvisaker. ‘The first such “action-oriented” program, the Gray Areas Project, was a turning point in foundation history--because it was a prime mover of the ill-starred War on Poverty--a turning point in American history as well. Its creator, Paul Ylvisaker, an energetic social theorist from Harvard and subsequent icon for the liberal foundation community, had concluded that the problems of newly migrated urban blacks and Puerto Ricans could not be solved by the “old and fixed ways of doing things.” Because existing private and public institutions were unresponsive, he argued, the new poverty populations needed a totally new institution--the “community action agency”--to coordinate legal, health, and welfare services and to give voice to the poor. According to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ford “proposed nothing less than institutional change in the operation and control of American cities….[Ford] invented a new level of American government: the inner-city community action agency.” Ylvisaker proceeded to establish such agencies in Boston, New Haven, Philadelphia, and Oakland.’ (Heather Mac Donald)

The initial phase of Ford Foundation intervention into the black inner-city ghetto under the rubric of the Gray Areas strategy helped to fuel the Watts, Detroit, and Newark riots of 1965-1967. The community action projects that were begun in these years did not deliver what they promised, but did set the stage for the futile and self-defeating violence of “Burn, baby burn,” which was considered fashionable in the radical chic salons of the day. “Unfortunately, because it was so intent on persuading the federal government to adopt the program, Ford ignored reports that the community action agencies were failures,” according to historian Alice O’Connor.

Reincarnated as federal Community Action Program (CAPs), Ford’s urban cadres soon began tearing up cities. Militancy became the mark of merit for federal funders, according to Senator Moynihan. In Newark, the director of the local CAP urged blacks to arm themselves before the 1967 riots; leaflets calling for a demonstration were run off on the CAP’s mimeograph machine. The federal government funneled community action money to Chicago gangs--posing as neighborhood organizers--who then continued to terrorize their neighbors. The Syracuse, New York CAP published a remedial reading manual that declared: “No ends are accomplished without the use of force....Squeamishness about force is the mark not of idealistic, but moonstruck morals.” Syracuse CAP employees applied $7 million of their $8 million federal grant to their own salaries’ (Heather Mac Donald)

McGeorge Bundy should have been arrested for inciting to riot, since that is exactly what he was doing. The political benefits of the resulting backlash would of course be harvested by demagogues like Nixon and Agnew….

MCGEORGE BUNDY: FROM VIETNAM STRATEGIC HAMLETS TO COMMUNITY CONTROL

In order to fragment, divide, and frustrate the ongoing political upsurge, the organizational forms which the Ford Foundation was using its fabulous wealth to create had to be as narrow, fragmented, apolitical, exclusive, and petty as possible. “Community Action Programs were a calculated means of keeping control. To deliver a particular point of view, foot soldiers got busy. Militants and Black Power were a joke! The Ford Foundation, through its president, McGeorge Bundy, was one step ahead and positioned to penetrate the movement. In promising to help achieve full domestic equality, they played a vanguard role and become the most important organization manipulating the militant black movement.” (Pulling No Punches, October 28, 2007)

McGeorge Bundy was a Skull and Bones graduate of Yale, a protégé of Dean Acheson, and the director of the National Security Council under President Kennedy....Bundy had left government in 1966, and would stay on as boss of the Ford Foundation until 1979. For much of this time, Bundy was considered to be the informal spokesman for the US Eastern Anglophile banking establishment, otherwise known as the financier oligarchy or ruling class. Accurate accounts of Bundy’s activities are very hard to come by, because no foundation has been willing to pay for an in-depth analysis of how foundation-funded social engineering is destroying this country.

Bundy was, in short, a butcher, but he was also a sophisticated ruling-class political operative. Bundy was a slightly younger colleague of the generation of self-styled “wise men” who had reorganized the Anglo-American world empire in the wake of World War II. Bundy was a dyed-in-the-wool, hereditary, silver-spoon oligarch, who was conscious of representing one of the most powerful and aggressive centers of imperialist social engineering. ‘David Halberstam was correct to quote one of McGeorge Bundy’s colleagues as stating that Bundy “…is a very special type, an elitist, part of a certain breed of men whose continuity is to themselves, a line to each other and not the country.”’ (Vincent J. Salandria, “The Promotion of Domestic Discord, an address at the conference of the New England Branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, October 23, 1971)

Bundy was determined to ram through the Ford Foundation counterinsurgency strategy, whatever the cost to New York City and its people: as one student of these events observes, “McGeorge Bundy was not a man given to self-doubt. (He once cut off discussion at a foundation meeting to a group of program officers: “Look, I’m settled about this. Let’s not talk about it any more. I may be wrong, but I’m not in doubt.”) And if he had second thoughts about the path down which he was taking the foundation, he did not express them at the time. Indeed, his speeches and writings in that period showed a confident determination to continue working with black militants.’ (“McGeorge Bundy: How the Establishment’s Man Tackled America’s Problem with Race,” Tamar Jacoby)

GONZALEZ: FORD FOUNDATION “REVERSE RACISM” AMONG LATINOS

Bundy started by revamping the grant priorities inside the Ford Foundation to focus on black oppression, as well as the parallel problems of other ethnic minorities. It is important to note that racial oppression was never defined by the Ford Foundation in broad-based economic terms, such as the need for modern housing, new urban mass transit, top-flight medical care, high-tech jobs with union wages, a quality college education for all ghetto youth, and other reforms which would have necessitated a domestic Marshall Plan costing hundreds of billions of dollars. This was something which the oligarchs had no intention of paying for. Rather, the Ford Foundation claimed that the oppression of the black community was a matter of white racist attitudes, as reflected in institutional arrangements which prevented black self-determination, community control, and self-esteem. In this case, the oligarchs could claim that white blue-collar workers were the real culprits, since they were the ones who came into the most intensive daily contact with oppressed blacks. “Bundy reallocated Ford’s resources from education to minority rights, which in 1960 had accounted for 2.5 percent of Ford’s giving but by 1970 would soar to 40 percent.” The same methods were also applied to Hispanics and Latinos in programs that were the precursors of the lunatic provocateur propaganda of groups like Atzlan, which makes the absurd demand that many American states be restored to Mexico....

Under Bundy’s leadership, Ford created a host of new advocacy groups, such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (a prime mover behind bilingual education) and the Native American Rights Fund, that still wreak havoc on public policy today. Ford’s support for a radical Hispanic youth group in San Antonio led even liberal congressman Henry B. Gonzalez to charge that Ford had fostered the “emergence of reverse racism in Texas.” (Heather Mac Donald)

Congressman Gonzalez, a real fighter who later pioneered in the effort to impeach George Bush the elder,

complained that the Ford Foundation had promoted racism among his people, Mexican Americans. He related how the Ford Foundation made a grant of $636,000 to the Southwest Council for LaRaza. He said: The Foundation wanted to create new leadership, and in fact the new leaders it has created daily proclaim that existing leadership is no good … … the president of MAYO, … likes to threaten to “kill” what he terms ‘gringos’ if all else fails … … I must come to the sad conclusion that, rather than fostering brotherhood, the foundation has supported the spewings of hate, and rather than creating a new political unit, it has destroyed what little there was …’ (Salandria)

We will see later on that the methods of the Ford Foundation in regard to the subversion and manipulation of the American Indian movement for financier and provocation purposes are virtually identical to the approach employed towards black and Hispanic target populations.

THE FORD FOUNDATION VS. MARTIN LUTHER KING

Martin Luther King was perceived by the Ford Foundation as a very serious threat, because of the inclusive united-front methods by which he proposed to merge the struggles of the black community with those of labor and the antiwar movement. The oligarchical class instinct of the Ford Foundation therefore dictated that ultra-radical racist provocateurs be thrown into the fray who would condemn Dr. King as a collaborationist Uncle Tom who was out of touch with younger firebrand radicals. The general heading for these Ford Foundation provocateurs was the Black Power movement or the pork chop cultural nationalists, who were always notoriously eager for their foundation checks.

In a sense, in this, Ford was only following up on its own early initiative: the foundation’s Gray Areas program, working in six inner cities in the early 1960s, had pioneered the idea of helping the ghetto help itself. But in 1964 the War on Poverty had taken the notion one step further, urging “maximum feasible participation” by the poor as a virtue in itself – calling on ghetto people not just to help run local services but teaching them to organize politically so that they could bargain with the government. As the idea gained credence, the emphasis of many anti-poverty programs shifted away from health care and education and job-training to teaching “leadership” and in effect telling “Whitey” off. Some people at the foundation were troubled by this new development. But they were largely unable to resist the growing pressure for any and all kinds of participatory programs. And it wasn’t long before Ford found itself paying for street gangs and avowed Black Power leaders. (Tamar Jacoby)

And again, the decision to fund the most incendiary lunatic agitators was a very conscious one, since their outrageous statements could be used to fuel the backlash of the white middle class against the militants for their demands.

FORD’S MCKISSICK, ANTI-MARTIN LUTHER KING

Thanks to the sheer power of its multi-billion-dollar endowment, the Ford Foundation was able to create a new fad for shameless, race-baiting provocateurs on the national scene. H. Rap Brown became infamous for his favorite slogan that “violence is as American as cherry pie.” Rap also issued ominous threats, including his classic “If America don’t come around, we’re gonna burn it down.” This was the age of “burn, baby, burn,” while reactionary Republican strategists around Nixon and others thanked heaven for their extraordinary good fortune.

A good example of the Ford Foundation sponsorship for the most extreme black power militants as a countergang to Martin Luther King was the grant allocation in Cleveland, Ohio:

Among the most controversial of these grants went to the Cleveland chapter of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality). Like even the most moderate civil-rights organizations, CORE had been drifting leftward through the 1960s. Its integrationist national director James Farmer had been replaced in 1966 by the younger and angrier Floyd McKissick, who along with Carmichael was among the first proponents of Black Power. Outflanked on the left by SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) and even tougher ghetto leaders advocating violence and a separate black nation, McKissick felt under strong pressure to prove his militancy. He began to talk of “revolution” and to forge links with black Muslims; he explicitly repudiated the phrase “civil rights,” replacing its appeal to morality with bristling talk of race-based “power.” Before long, his escalating racial rhetoric had driven most white members out of CORE. By 1967, SNCC had actually expelled whites, and in July CORE deleted the word “multiracial” from its constitution. With this, it dropped all pretense that it was pursuing integration or the hope of progress based on racial harmony.

None of this apparently bothered the Ford Foundation, which announced two weeks later – even as the Newark ghetto erupted into riots – that it was giving $175,000 to CORE’S Cleveland chapter. Bundy explained at a press conference that his board had considered the grant “with particular care.” (In fact among some 16 trustees, only Henry Ford himself had expressed any doubts.) What’s more, said Bundy, “neither Mr. McKissick nor I suppose that this grant requires the two of us – or our organizations – to agree on all public questions.” The foundation had chosen Cleveland because it had been particularly hard hit by riots the past summer; Ford’s theory was that CORE might channel the ghetto’s grievances in a more constructive way, averting further violence in the streets. The money was earmarked for voter registration and the training of community workers who were them to help other blacks articulate their needs.’ (Tamar Jacoby, “McGeorge Bundy: How the Establishment’s Man Tackled America’s Problem with Race”)

Bundy the patrician had made McKissick the minority plebeian into his mercenary as part of an incipient war on the part of the financiers against the majority of the American people in the form of the white middle class and lower middle class.

Rational spokesmen for the black community were horrified by the kinds of reckless and irresponsible agitation which the Ford Foundation was creating: ‘In Cleveland, ‘A black city councilman who opposed the program said the youths were being taught “race hatred” and that they had been heard telling younger children that “we are going to get guns and take over.” Yet Ford continued to defend the grant: “I see it,” said a foundation consultant, “as a flowering of what Black Power could be.” In August 1968, the program was renewed, with explicit instructions to include local gang leaders.’ (Tamar Jacoby) The Ford Foundation was not making mistakes; it was rather acting with diabolical effectiveness to pursue its oligarchical class agenda.

Page 85:

1980s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND COLLABORATIVES: OBAMA’S BACKGROUND

By the time Barack Hussein Obama arrived on the foundations scene in the mid-1980s, the original community action/community control/local control counterinsurgency strategy of the foundation community had somewhat evolved into community development corporations. These CDCs were first of all a reflection of the fact that economic conditions had become much more desperate as a result of rampant economic misrule under the Reagan regime. The trade union movement in its traditional form had now been largely broken. The CDCs were basically apolitical, in that they presuppose that any attempt to change the policies of the government in Washington was hopeless, and that the most that could be attempted was to make the slide into de-industrialization and poverty a little more comfortable. The CDCs were also corporatist in the strict sense borrowed from the Mussolini fascist corporate state: as an organization form, they brought together workers, bankers, foundation bureaucrats, and government officials in an attempt to cajole corporate interests into creating a few jobs in poverty-stricken and blighted neighborhoods. Alternatively, they sought minor reform such as measures to reduce asbestos or lead poisoning in schools and public buildings.

This is precisely the strategy which Barack Hussein Obama was implementing for the Gamaliel foundation, a satellite of the Ford Foundation, in the Altgeld neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. Obama was therefore a second-generation poverty pimp carrying out an overtly corporatist political plan designed to maintain the control of bankers and financiers over the city of Chicago in just the same way that McGeorge Bundy had done this in New York.

Page 88:

”I WAS A POVERTY PIMP FOR THE FOUNDATIONS”

The role of poverty pimp within the framework of foundation-funded strategies for mass political and social manipulation, with a view to keeping the American people in a state of apathy, fragmentation, passivity, and oppression, is a very exact characterization of what Obama did during his years as a “community organizer.” To talk about poverty pimps is of course politically incorrect in the extreme, but it is the only way to convey the social reality of what we are dealing with in the case of Obama. For further background, we read in Wikipedia:

Poverty pimp or "professional poverty pimp" is a sarcastic label used to convey the opinion that an individual or group is benefiting unduly by acting as an intermediary on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged or some other "victimized" groups. Those who use this appellation suggest that those so labeled profit unduly from the misfortune of others, and therefore do not really wish the societal problems that they appear to work on to be eliminated permanently, as it is not in their own interest for this to happen. The most frequent targets of this accusation are those receiving government funding or that solicit private charity to work on issues on behalf of various disadvantaged individuals or groups, but who never seem to be able to show any amelioration of the problems experienced by their target population.

This self-serving cynicism, in feeding off the plight of a group of desperate dupes who are turned into a salable political commodity, is the essence of Obama's career.

-----------------------------------

Bottom line: just as anti-war/anti-police state/anti-debt-money “conservatives” must not allow themselves to become the unwitting dupes of yet another pro-war/pro-police state/pro-debt-money “neocon,” anti-war/anti-police state/anti-debt-money “progressives” must not allow themselves to become the unwitting dupes of yet another pro-war/pro-police state/pro-debt-money “liberal” or "progressive" (whether from the corporate world or foundation world).

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a non-profit and non-partisan advocacy group in the United States. It is not to be confused with La Raza Unida. Its stated focus is on reducing poverty and discrimination, and improving opportunities for Hispanics. According to the organization's website, it is "the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States" and "serves all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country". NCLR receives funding from [so-called] philanthropic organizations, such as the Ford Foundation, and corporations such as Citigroup and Wal-Mart. NCLR serves its constituency by means of its Affiliates, nearly 300 community-based organizations. The NCLR is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and maintains eight regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. The current president is Janet Murguía.

Imagine the national uproar if 200 Tea Partiers had gone on a rampage with burning torches

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comMonday, May 3, 2010

Imagine the uproar if 200 Tea Party members had gone on a rampage through a downtown city, smashing windows, starting fires, and spraying graffiti everywhere, the corporate media would be all over it, and yet gangs of pro-illegal immigration demonstrators do this and much worse on a regular basis, with no national news coverage whatsoever.

“A large group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker’s and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said,” reports The Santa Cruz Sentinel.

An Associated Press report states that eighteen businesses were damaged as pro-immigrants rights activists engaged in violent riots, spraying graffiti, smashing windows, setting fire to shop fronts, and causing damage to a cost of up to $100,000 dollars.

“The damage that was caused was without purpose,” Capt. Steve Clark said. “It was senseless violence that victimized a community who cannot afford to be victimized in this manner. This did nothing to add credit to whatever they believed their cause was.”

The riot followed the announcement that pro-amnesty demonstrators would march across the country on May 1st, which is also a date on which socialists rally worldwide to celebrate Communism, euphemistically labeled “International Workers Day” by the media.

In addition, during a pro-amnesty rally in San Francisco, 40 Golden Gate Minutemen, who were staging a peaceful counter-protest, were chased, beaten and injured by the pro-immigration thugs.

If Tea Partiers so much as dare to carry a vaguely inflammatory sign or shout at a lawmaker, they are nationally demonized by the corporate media as dangerous racist extremists and even domestic terrorists. And yet anarchists and pro-illegal immigrant demonstrators can run riot, engage in violence and cause monumental damage to private property and it barely even makes the news.

Watch the clip below. Despite the best efforts of ABC News to characterize the culprits solely as “anarchists” and not pro-illegal demonstrators, at the end of the clip, people in the background can be heard shouting “deport illegal immigrants,” making it clear who the business owners and residents held responsible for the damage.

As we have previously highlighted, despite media characterizations of anyone who opposes big government or illegal immigration as violent extremists, by far the most dangerous and violent individuals have proven to be pro-Obama goons as well as radical racist La Raza groups.

But you won’t see hide nor hair of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher attacking racist pro-illegal hate groups who threaten to murder Americans with axes, because it simply doesn’t fit into their or the federal government’s primary mission, which is to smear peaceful Americans angry at how big government and huge corporations are manipulating and siding with millions of illegal aliens to crush the middle class, as violent racist extremists who need to be silenced.

Alex Jones’ Battle For The Republic exposes how the elite are using illegal immigration and pushing amnesty as a means of pulverizing the American middle class and ensuring that U.S. citizens, black, white and hispanic alike, are forced to sacrifice their freedom and sovereignty as America is sunk into a third world cesspool. Watch below.

I realize that most of the individuals who frequent this forum are either "conservatives" or Austrian School "libertarians" who, as such, don't have to be told that there are certain "liberals" and "progressives" who don't necessarily have their best interests in mind.

Nevertheless, I assume at least some of the many hundreds of "guests" here are left-leaning independents and relative newcomers to the world of politics. It is primarily to them that I address the following.

If Ralph Nader is a classic example of a true and sincere liberal who, as such, is genuinely concerned with eliminating poverty, Barack Obama is a classic example of both (a) a smug, manipulative, insincere “limousine liberal” and (b) a foundation-funded “poverty pimp” whose only real concern is with protecting the vested interests of the ruling-class oligarchs pulling his strings, while fooling his gullible followers with carefully crafted, euphemism-laced rhetoric into believing all the while that he’s serving their interests.

With particular regard to elite “foundations,” it seems that most people are woefully unaware of the alarming extent to which these supposedly “benevolent” institutions have shaped the horribly and increasingly dysfunctional social and political realities that have grown up around us in recent decades.

"You know, anything different, that’s what they’re gonna talk about: race, religion, ethic and national backgrounds, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality -- anything they can do [to] keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank."

In light of the information provided above, how likely is it that the so-called "New Black Panther Party" is at least partially funded by either the Ford Foundation itself or one of its "satellites"? Or is that the sort of question the race-obsessed corporate media would rather we not ask in the first place, lest the divide-and-rule tactics of the global elite be exposed for what they are?

It is unclear why the New Black Panthers are worried about the Tea Party. After all, they have Eric Holder on their side. He dismissed voter intimidation charges after the government had a default judgment conviction.

The New Black Panther Party has been embroiled in a battle between Republican Congressmen and the U.S. Department Of Justice battle over a ”voter intimidation” scandal for the last 18 months. During these 18 months right wing and Republican Newspaper and Electronic media have gone to exhaustive lengths to discredit and slander the New Black Panther Party and its Chairman and Attorney Malik Zulu Shabazz.

Despite the controversy the New Black Panther Party continues to grow and expand. The National Black Power Conventions impressive lineup of guests and organizations is a testimony that the New Black Panthers Leadership has support in wide circles in the Black Community, particularly amongst grassroots organizers and entertainers.

“With the rise of the Tea Party, the white-right and other racist forces. With gun sales nationwide at an all time high amongst whites, with a mood that is more anti-Black than any time recent, it is imperative that we organize our forces, pool our resources and prepare for war!” Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Esq. Convention Convener and Party Chairman.

To all you self-righteous, insult-spewing, race-obsessed “liberals” out there who shamelessly wrap in the flag of “anti-racism” virtually each and every corporate fascist economic policy, Bush-style police state policy and imperialist foreign policy the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House propose, perpetuate or expand, I have a few questions for you:

If you’re as concerned with exposing and eliminating “racism” as you would have everyone believe, why do neither you nor the General Electric-financed Thought Police at MSNBC speak a word of protest against Obama's continuation of the racist drug war?

Why no word of protest against how neither Obama nor Democratic Congressional “leaders” have done anything (legislatively, not rhetorically!) to reverse the NAFTA-induced offshoring of countless millions of jobs -- yet another engineered trend that, as any black person from Detroit will readily attest, falls harder on poor, inner-city blacks than anyone else?

And last but certainly not least, why do you ignore the shameful, decades-old tradition among aristocrat-funded “foundations” -- particularly the Ford Foundation -- of employing the divide-and-rule/anti-MLK tactic of fomenting racial hatred within and between the lower and middle classes; and how this historical fact sheds a particularly unflattering light on all the racial provocateuring and hatemongering being engaged in by La Raza -- a hispanic supremecy group which is financed not only by the Ford Foundation, but by overprivileged corporations such as slave goods-selling Wal-Mart and toxic derivatives-peddling Citigroup?

Could it be that the real racists are you, and that your mindless accusations of racism against anyone who dares criticize God’s Obama's corporate fascist economic policies, Bush-style police state policies and terroristic foreign policies are thus nothing more than Freudian projection on your part?

Or is that yet another question you have neither the courage nor intellectual honesty to answer?

Why no word of protest against Obama's plan to impose IMF-style austerity measures on behalf of his Wall Street cronies, particularly in view of the fact that these measures will fall harder on poor black communities than on any other sector of society?

For the Obama administration, every bit of public space and property is "on the table" - subject to privatization. Transfer of public wealth to private hands seems a White House obsession. Next on the auction block: the nation's public housing stock. "This is gentrification and urban displacement on a gargantuan scale."

President Obama's greatest domestic imperative is the transfer of public wealth and resources to the private sector. He moved tens of trillions of dollars to Wall Street in the guise of rescuing the economy. Hundreds of billions in public funds are scheduled for transfer to private insurance corporations over the next decade or so, masquerading as a health care plan. His support for corporate-backed charter schools and other so-called public-private partnerships has dramatically escalated the privatization of education in the United States. Obama calls it a "Race to the Top." Now, the Obama administration is serving up to corporate vultures the nation's dwindling stock of public housing, with bankers as the ultimate beneficiaries.

The plan is slick, but easy enough to see through - like the president, himself. Dubbed the Transforming Rental Assistance initiative, or TRA, the scheme would allow banks and other speculators to mortgage public housing, and then raise the rents to ten percent above market value. The federal government would make up the difference, pumping the people's money directly into Wall Street accounts. Eventually, of course, the feds will halt or cut back payments, and the properties will revert to the bankers, who will sell them to developers and kick out the tenants. This is gentrification and urban displacement on a gargantuan scale - brought to you by the First Black President.

Imagine! Obama wants to transfer to banks and developers tens of thousands of acres of public-owned urban property - home to 1.2 million families, disproportionately Black and brown - all the while subsidizing the banksters' profits with billions of taxpayer dollars. He would entrust the fates of millions of poor people to the tender mercies of the same criminal-minded class that has destroyed a generation and more of Black homeowners and displaced legions of Black renters from the gentrifying cities.

Obama wants to transform public housing into a Section 8 subsidy program. That is the kiss of death. Section 8 housing has always been underfunded. In New York City, alone, 10,000 Section 8 voucher holders may not be able to pay their rent because the feds won't come up with the funding.

When public housing defaults on payments to the bankers under the Obama scheme, it will be a second bonanza for Wall Street - which is how billions are made in an economy ruled by parasites who create nothing, but charge a fee for everything.

Those are Obama's kind of people. I'm not just talking about the mega-banks and hedge-funders that backed him to the hilt in his presidential campaign. Obama's closest cronies and former clients from Chicago - including senior advisor Valerie Jarret - made their fortunes milking government subsidized housing programs for the poor until the federal government had to step in and pick up the pieces.

If Obama has his way, speculators will descend on all 3,000 of the nation's public housing agencies, bribing every official in sight in a frenzy of corruption over federal land and subsidies. And the poor will start counting the days before they are put out in the street.

While would be Senator Rand Paul was recently slated by the controlled left wing media for his nuanced philosophical view on one of the ten titles of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the late Sen. Robert Byrd – an actual former member of the Ku Klux Klan who filibustered the Civil Rights Act - was lauded today by a former president as well as the nation’s first black president.

Clinton and Obama today both defended Byrd’s past association with the Klan in the 1940s.

In a key note speech at Byrd’s funeral in Charleston today, Clinton hit out at eulogies in some newspapers that had highlighted Byrd’s ties with the Klan.

“He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected,” Clinton said.

“And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done come and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians,” he added.

The late Senator signed up with the Klan in 1942, becoming head of the local chapter before claiming to lose interest in the organisation a year later. However, in 1946 Byrd stated that the KKK was “needed today as never before”, he also defended the Klan during his Senate run in 1958, voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas and he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So much for Clinton’s description of a “fleeting” association with the KKK.

President Obama described Byrd as a “statesman”, adding that his ties to the Klan could be forgiven following his long career as a Senator.

“We know there are things he said and things he did that he came to regret,” Obama said.

In reference to a conversation Obama said he once had with Byrd the president noted: “He said, ‘There are things I regretted in my youth. You may know that.’ I said, ‘None of us are absent some regrets, senator. That’s why we enjoy and seek the grace of God.’”

“And as I reflect on the full sweep of his 92 years, it seems to me that his life bent toward justice,” Obama added. “Like the Constitution he tucked in his pocket, like the nation itself, Robert Byrd possessed that quintessential American quality, and that is the capacity to change, a capacity to learn, a capacity to listen, a capacity to be made more perfect.”

H0llyw00d

“And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done come and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians,” he added.

NAACP Resolution Designed to Wreck Tea Party Movement by Playing Race Card

Kurt NimmoInfowars.comJuly 13, 2010

Before Obama was selected to be the next front man for the ruling elite, we said race would be used to shut down any opposition to government. During the NAACP convention this week, that is precisely what is happening.

During its annual convention in St. Louis, the NAACP will consider a resolution that will “repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and stand against the movement’s attempt to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era,” according to Fox News.

The resolution calls on “the leadership and members of the tea party to recognize the historic and present racist factions within it and to repudiate those factions,” and says the movement has opposed government programs that help working people and people of color, NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told the Washington Post.

The highly factionalized Tea Party movement uniformly opposes record deficits and a national debt designed to destroy the nation. According to the Treasury Department, the deficit stood at $94.3 billion in June. For the fiscal year to date, the budget deficit totaled $1 trillion, Bloomberg reports.

Spending for the entire government for June increased 3.2 percent from the same month a year earlier to $319.5 billion, according to Bloomberg. Spending by the Defense Department year to date rose to $499.1 billion from $472.8 billion in 2009. Outlays by the Social Security Administration increased to $564.2 billion for the fiscal year to date from $544.7 billion. Spending by the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, climbed to $631.4 billion.

On March 20, Democrats and the corporate media launched a misleading propaganda offensive claiming Tea Party protesters in Washington spat on Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver and hurled racial epithets at members of the Congressional Black Caucus as they walked to the Capitol to cast a vote on Obama’s authoritarian health care bill.

In fact, as Infowars.com reported after Cleaver and others accused the Tea Party of racism, the spitting incident never occurred. The “N” word cannot be heard (see videos here) during the confrontation in opposition to Obamacare. Democrats invented the incident and the corporate media has used it repeatedly since to denounce and discredit the popular Tea Party movement.

Democrat operatives and other miscreants have infiltrated Tea Party rallies around the country with racist and other provocative placards designed to discredit the movement. In April of 2009, in San Antonio, Texas, a man with a “Save White America” placard was outed as a racist provocateur.

In April of this year, Jason Levin of Portland, Oregon, launched a website with the explicit purpose of crashing to Tea Party movement.

Levin encouraged people to “dismantle and demolish” the Tea Party movement he declared consists of “racists, homophobes, and morons.” Levin admitted his purpose was to “disrupt and derail” the movement. The FBI used similar language when it created COINTELPRO to destroy the civil rights and anti-war movements in the 1960s and 70s.

The establishment media will naturally provide the NAACP resolution with plenty of coverage and attempt to further the agenda of the ruling elite to destroy the movement with innuendo and lies at all cost. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann wasted little time exploiting the NAACP vote (see video below) to assert the movement is chock full of racists.

The effort is likely to fail miserably. In late 2009, it was reported that the Tea Party movement boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican parties, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. In fact, so popular are the political ideas of the Tea Party movement — less government, lower taxes, and constitutional values — the Republican party has engaged in a concerted [and largely successful] effort to take over the movement.

In light of the information provided above, how likely is it that the so-called "New Black Panther Party" is at least partially funded by either the Ford Foundation itself or one of its "satellites"? Or is that the sort of question the race-obsessed corporate media would rather we not ask in the first place, lest the divide-and-rule tactics of the global elite be exposed for what they are?

-----------------------------------

Spot on. Needs checking out

Logged

"Any gang of thugs could murder someone, but it took an intelligence services to make a murder appear to be a suicide or natural death." - James Angleton

Will establishment media take the bait as anarchists pose as racists and extremist right wingers?

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comMonday, April 12, 2010

With the establishment desperate to engender and exploit violence which will be used to demonize the Tea Party movement as an extremist mob, so-called anarchists are now openly declaring their intentions to pose as Tea Party members and stage violence in order to discredit populist grass roots organizations.

As we warned last week, leading anarchist groups have announced that they plan to “crash” the nationwide Tea Party protests on April 15, a promise that should not be taken lightly given the proven history of such organizations being infiltrated and steered by authorities to provocateur pointless mayhem and violence that serves as a justification for oppressing peaceful protest groups.

Now a new website called crashtheteaparty.org has appeared to act as a forum through which such activity can be planned. The website openly states its mission is to have people infiltrate and pose as Tea Party members and then carry out shameful acts in order to “dismantle and demolish” the Tea Party. The website is registered to a man named Josh Levin.

“Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans,” states the website.

“In other words, some on the Left in American politics are running a KGB-like 'false flag' operation to discredit the Tea Party,” writes the Washington Examiner’s Josh Tapscott. “They couldn’t sell the transparently nonsensical idea that Tea Partiers are just a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons, so the Crash the Party agents on the Left are infiltrating the Tea Party in order to pose as a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons.”

“It’s among the most illustrative expressions ever of the thirst on the Left to suppress dissent by whatever means are necessary,” he adds.

Given the virulent hatred for free speech such groups embrace, it’s unsurprising that merely staging a counter-demonstration is not good enough for them – they have to impersonate and undermine their political opposition in a completely underhanded and immature fashion.

Think Progress Caught Using Liberal-Manufactured Signs From ‘Crash the Tea Party’ as Evidence of Tea Party Racism

YoutubeJuly 16, 2010

Liberal group Think Progress is featuring a video that supposedly “proves racism” in the ranks of the Tea Party. In fact, the video features signs that were provided by liberal groups to infiltrate the group.

Illegal immigration supporting Brown Beret protesters harass American patriots in front of Californians rallied in front of Angel Stadium (Anaheim, CA) that are trying to support Arizona’s SB 1070 law on Tuesday July 13, 2010.

Nicknamed the Tan Klan or Latino KKK, the Brown Berets are a paramilitary organization founded in the 1960’s that support illegal immigration as a way to forge a racially pure homeland for Latino’s by overthrowing part or all of the United States. Many of these brown Nazis call their plans for a racist homeland ‘Aztlan’.

While this woman brazenly screams racist comments through a bull horn, she can do so because the Obama administration and most of the major news networks in America have her back.

While many in the media will conceal this incident, coverage of the NAACP’s false claim the Tea Party Movement is racist can be found on all networks.

If America knew the truth about the real violence and racism that is pervasive in the pro illegal alien and pro Comprehensive Immigration Reform AMNESTY movement, then CIR would be destroyed.

America needs to abandon the Obama, McCain, Kennedy, Bush Amnesty agenda for illegal aliens and move to enforce our existing border and immigration laws instead which will slowly push illegal aliens to return to their home.

If we fail to do that, groups like the Brown Berets will gain power and become more of a threat to law abiding Americans.

For more information or to get involved in the American struggle for our existing borders to be enforced, please visit Americans for Legal Immigration PAC aka ALIPAC at…

And last but certainly not least, why do you ignore the shameful, decades-old tradition among aristocrat-funded “foundations” -- particularly the Ford Foundation -- of employing the divide-and-rule/anti-MLK tactic of fomenting racial hatred within and between the lower and middle classes; and how this historical fact sheds a particularly unflattering light on all the racial provocateuring and hatemongering being engaged in by La Raza -- a hispanic supremecy group which is financed not only by the Ford Foundation, but by overprivileged corporations such as slave goods-selling Wal-Mart and toxic derivatives-peddling Citigroup?

A 2002 annual report breaking down money doled out by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation reveals the foundation provided a grant to National Council of La Raza. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is arguably the largest “charitable” organization in the world.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave La Raza over $6 million in2002.

Gates gave $6,661,364 to the racist organization for education, according to the foundation’s website. La Raza has also received financial support from the Ford Foundation. For instance, in 1968, the globalist foundation gave La Raza $600,000, according to research conducted by Philip Brennan.

La Raza’s website admits “the organization receives two-thirds of its funding from corporations and foundations, and the rest from the government.” For the period 1992-1996, the total amount of “gifts, grants and contributions” to La Raza was more than $38 million.

The Ford Foundation has also funded the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). According to Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who does not like it should leave.” In 1998, Obledo was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Clinton.

La Raza’s motto is “For the race everything, outside the race nothing” (“Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada”). La Raza is associated with the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán (MEChA), an organization that espouses Aztec supremacism and irredentism (specifically advocating the annexation of the American Southwest). Mestizo activists believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land and propose that a new nation be created, a Republica del Norte. The primary vehicle for creating this Aztec nation is La Reconquista, a demographic “revolution” that strives to supplant “gringos” in the Southwest with an influx of illegal Mexican immigrants.

According to La Raza, border control is racist. The organization condemns the “step-up [in] immigration law enforcement significantly along the U.S./Mexico border and in the interior of the country” claiming such activities violate the civil rights of Hispanics.

A recent poll conducted by Fox News reveals that most Americans believe the federal government is failing to enforce the country’s immigration laws. In addition, voters are more likely to favor than oppose Arizona’s new immigration law that was blocked by a federal judge last week.

As Kevin Lamb notes, the Gates and Ford foundations, along with the Soros and Rockefeller foundations, have long funded and supported “well-organized ethnic-immigrant lobbies and advocacy groups, which are actively working to transform the U.S. into a borderless society,” a cornerstone of the globalist vision and the end game of world government. La Raza, MEChA, and other so-called Hispanic civil rights organizations calling for an unrestricted flow of illegal immigrants are indispensable for this one-world agenda.

In addition to striving to eliminate borders and destroy the national sovereignty of the United States, Bill Gates has worked tirelessly as a eugenicist dedicated to reduce world population, another key objective of the elite. “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent,” Gates said during an invitation-only conference held in Long Beach, California, earlier this year.

“In plain English, one of the most powerful men in the world states clearly that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth. When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority,” writes F. William Engdahl.

La Raza and MEChA need to take note. The globalist foundations are not primarily concerned with the civil liberties of people in the third world, including Mexico, but are rather determined to exploit them in order to further their one-world and ultimately eugenics depopulation agenda.

It is yet another example of how the corporate media will lie and break agreements in order to accomplish its overarching mission — to denigrate and tear down any political candidate who will endeavor to break the stranglehold of mega-corporations and banks over the political life of the nation.

Earlier in the week Texas Republican Ron Paul ventured into enemy territory when he agreed to appear on the Lawrence O’Donnell show on MSNBC, the same network that ambushed his son and attempted to portray him as a member of the Ku Klux Klan opposed to the Civil Rights Act. The corporate media immediately took its cue from the Maddow “interview” — actually a drive-by attempt at character assassination — and ran back-to-back segments designed to make Paul out to be a racist. The wife of former Federal Reserve mob boss Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell, declared the attempt to destroy Ran Paul was “a game changing interview.” It was nothing of the sort. Rand Paul leads the race in Kentucky.

David Gregory of “Meet the Press” called Rand’s comments “pretty far out view even for those on the right” and professional character assassin Chris Matthews went on “Leno” to bash Paul as “a philosopher and philosophers shouldn’t run for office.”

Instead of philosophers, we get a lickspittles for the establishment.

Matthews’ job is to steer people away from the fact that Obama and the Democrats are no different than Bush and the Republicans. Both work for the banksters. Both support forever war and the ongoing effort to erect pyres of dead bodies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and soon enough Iran.

If you doubt MSNBC is a cheerleader for mass murder in far away lands, consider the fact the network dropped Jesse Ventura like a rock back in 2003 when he dared oppose the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. They canceled “Jesse Ventura’s America” in response to his principled opposition. Obviously, Jesse is too much of a philosopher for MSNBC, a network owned by General Electric. GE is one of the world’s top three producers of jet engines, supplying Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other military aircraft makers for the powering of airplanes and helicopters that kill brown people in “rogue states.”

Lawrence O’Donnell’s lecturing Ron Paul on “freedom” — as mandated by government at gunpoint — is hypocrisy at its worst.

The CIA infiltrated corporate media is not a purveyor of freedom and liberty. It is a slick, multi-billion dollar propaganda apparatus designed to trick people into supporting the establishment and its foreign wars. The false right-left paradigm exercised 24/7 on the corporate media networks is a distraction. It is a slight of hand devised to distract people as the ruling elite roll out their global slave and surveillance grid.

Three months ago in Kansas City, the NAACP first raised charges of racism within the tea party movement. Today a report is being released accusing tea party groups of providing platforms to anti-Semites and other bigots.

“These groups and individuals are out there, and we ignore them at our own peril,” said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous in a statement announcing the report. “They are speaking at tea party events, recruiting at rallies, and in some cases remain in the tea party leadership itself.”

The 94-page report is being released by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in a teleconference today.

In July, NAACP delegates passed a resolution at their national convention in Kansas City condemning racism within the tea party movement, creating a national furor. The NAACP board of directors ratified the resolution last week.

Three months ago in Kansas City, the NAACP first raised charges of racism within the tea party movement. Today a report is being released accusing tea party groups of providing platforms to anti-Semites and other bigots.

“These groups and individuals are out there, and we ignore them at our own peril,” said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous in a statement announcing the report. “They are speaking at tea party events, recruiting at rallies, and in some cases remain in the tea party leadership itself.”

The 94-page report is being released by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in a teleconference today.

In July, NAACP delegates passed a resolution at their national convention in Kansas City condemning racism within the tea party movement, creating a national furor. The NAACP board of directors ratified the resolution last week.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

The mass-circulation weekly TEMPO accused Ford of having once played, at the urging of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a covert role in Indonesian political affairs by consciously supporting the work of individuals who were deemed to be sympathetic to the anti-communist aims of American foreign policy. — Chronicle of Philanthropy, 12/13/01

The Ford Foundation's history of collaboration and interlock with the CIA in pursuit of U.S. world hegemony is now a well-documented fact...The Ford Foundation has in some ways refined their style of collaboration with Washington's attempt to produce world cultural domination, but retained the substance of that policy...The ties between the top officials of the Ford Foundation and the U.S. government are explicit and continuing.—James Petras in "The Ford Foundation and the CIA: A documented case of philanthropic collaboration with the Secret Police" on 12/15/2001

The multi-billion dollar Ford Foundation's historic relationship to the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] is rarely mentioned on Pacifica's DEMOCRACY NOW / Deep Dish TV show, on FAIR's COUNTERSPIN show, on the WORKING ASSETS RADIO show, on The Nation Institute's RADIO NATION show, on David Barsamian's ALTERNATIVE RADIO show or in the pages of PROGRESSIVE, MOTHER JONES and Z magazine. One reason may be because the Ford Foundation and other Establishment foundations subsidize the Establishment Left's alternative media gatekeepers / censors.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated April 4, 1968, shortly after he started speaking out against the global elite and the injustice they inflict on all of humanity though orchestrated wars and economic oppression. He believed that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

While King may not physically be with us today, we are fortunate that he left us with powerful principles and tools for defeating tyranny. King, Gandhi and many others have set the precedent for our liberation, proving that courage, love, persistence, and some simple tools are ultimately victorious.

In fact, the tools and principles utilized by King are so powerful that they rocked the foundation of the global elite’s power structure. As Andrew Gavin Marshall writes:

When Martin Luther King began speaking about more than race, and openly criticized the entire social structure of empire and economic exploitation, not simply of blacks, but of all people around the world and at home, he posed too great a threat to the oligarchy to tolerate him any longer. It was at this point that the National Security State chose to assassinate Martin Luther King, and the philanthropies greatly expanded their financing of the Civil Rights Movement to ensure that it would be led in their desired direction.

Hatred for King by the elite’s agents in government intensified after he publicly identified the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” The FBI and U.S military kept King under 24-hour surveillance, and agents had infiltrated the civil rights movement. Therefore, the elites were aware of King’s Poor People’s Campaign for Washington D.C., where King planned to shut down the nation’s capital in the spring of 1968 through massive civil disobedience until the government agreed to combat economic inequality in the United States rather than drop bombs on Vietnam.

On December 8, 1999, in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the King Family, a jury composed of six white and six black people deliberated less than three hours to find that Loyd Jowers (who confessed on television in 1999) and others “including governmental agencies,” were parties to the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. During closing argument, King family attorney William Pepper stated: “When Martin King opposed the war, when he rallied people to oppose the war, he was threatening the bottom lines of some of the largest defense contractors in this country. This was about money. He was threatening the weapons industry, the hardware, the armaments industries, that would all lose as a result of the end of the war.”

All Americans would be well advised to review the evidence that was presented at the trial.

Now we shall examine Martin Luther King, Jr.’s principles and tools for restoring freedom in greater detail, committing them to memory by applying them with action each day.

Martin Luther King Jr.: Stop the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Stop the Mugging of the Middle Class and Poor by the Wealthy

Washington’s BlogMonday, January 17, 2011

The Defense Department’s general counsel said that he believed Martin Luther King, Jr., might have supported the current wars:

I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation's military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack.

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government… We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.'... A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

King lamented that the United States had become the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, said the world "is sick with war", and said that "war is not the answer." King said:

I never intend to become adjusted to the madness of militarism and the self-defeating method of physical violence.

And he warned that the deep malady of the American spirit is our perverse devotion to what he called the "giant triplets" of "racism, extreme materialism, and militarism."

Indeed, if one understands King's core philosophies, the Pentagon's statement becomes even sillier.

Well, the time he did it before was in a Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.

When President Barack Obama joined the ranks of Henry Kissinger and the other gentle souls who have received Nobel Peace Prizes, he did something that I don't think anyone else had previously done in a Peace Prize acceptance speech. He argued for war. And he opposed the position of a previous Peace Prize Laureate, namely Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: 'Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.'…But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by [King's and Gandhi's] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history…. So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace."

But, you know, I've never found any opponent of war who didn't believe there was evil in the world. After all, we oppose war because it is evil.

Did Martin Luther King, Jr., not face the world as it is? Was he delusional? Did he stand idle in the face of threats? This is President Obama's position.

Did King oppose protecting and defending people? Of course not. He worked for that very goal!

Obama claims that his only choices are war or nothing. But the reason people know the names Gandhi (who was never given a Nobel Peace Prize) and King is that they suggested other options and proved that those other approaches could work. This fundamental disagreement cannot be smoothed over. Either war is the only option or it is not -- in which case we must consider the alternatives.

Couldn't we have halted Hitler's armies without a world war? To claim otherwise is ridiculous. We could have halted Hitler's armies by not concluding World War I with an effort seemingly aimed at breeding as much resentment as possible in Germany (punishing a whole people rather than individuals, requiring that Germany admit sole responsibility, taking away its territory, and demanding enormous reparations payments that it would have taken [in fact did take] Germany several decades to pay), or by putting our energies seriously into a League of Nations and International Court as opposed to the victor-justice of dividing the spoils, or by building good relations with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, or by funding peace studies in Germany rather than eugenics, or by fearing militaristic governments more than leftist ones, or by not funding Hitler and his armies, or by helping the Jews escape, or by maintaining a ban on bombing civilians, or indeed by massive nonviolent resistance which requires greater courage and valor than we've ever seen in war.

We have seen such courage in the largely nonviolent eviction of the British rulers from India, in the nonviolent overthrow of the ruler of El Salvador in 1944, in the campaigns that ended Jim Crow in the United States and apartheid in South Africa. We've seen it in the popular removal of the ruler of the Philippines in 1986, in the largely nonviolent Iranian Revolution of 1979, in the dismantling of the Soviet Union in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, as well as in the Ukraine in 2004 and 2005, and in dozens of other examples from all over the world, including Tunisia and Egypt. Why should Germany be the one place where a force more powerful than violence could not possibly have prevailed?

If you can't accept that World War II could have been avoided, there is still this crucial point to consider: Hitler's armies have been gone for 65 years but are still being used to justify the scourge of humanity that we outlawed in 1928: war. Most nations do not behave as Nazi Germany did, and one reason is that a lot of them have come to value and understand peace. Those that do make war still appeal to a horrible episode in world history that ended 65 years ago to justify what they are doing -- exactly as if nothing has changed, exactly as if King and Gandhi and billions of other people have not come and gone and contributed their bit to our knowledge of what can and should be done.

Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda to lay down its arms? How would President Obama know that? The United States has never tried it. The solution cannot be to meet the demands of terrorists, thereby encouraging terrorism, but the grievances against the United States that attract people to anti-U.S. terrorism seem extremely reasonable:

We ought to satisfy those demands even in the absence of negotiations with anyone. We ought to stop producing and selling most of the weapons we want other people to "lay down." And if we did so, you would see about as much anti-U.S. terrorism as the Norwegians giving out the prizes see anti-Norwegian terrorism. Norway has neither negotiated with al-Qaeda nor murdered all of its members. Norway has just refrained from doing what the United States military does, although sometimes participating.

Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama disagree, and only one of them can be right. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, King said:

"Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Love? I thought it was a big stick, a large Navy, a missile defense shield, and weapons in outerspace. King may in fact have been ahead of us. This portion of King's 1964 speech anticipated Obama's speech 45 years later:

"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.…I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up."

Other-centered? How odd it sounds to imagine the United States and its people becoming other-centered. It sounds as outrageous as loving one's enemies. And yet there may just be something to it. King was a moral man who, if alive today, would be an environmentalist. He might very well be risking arrest at the White House right now to demand clean energy rather than the opening up of enough new dirty fuel use to finish off the planet. He would likely be committed to nonviolent actions of the aort planned for October 2011 at http://october2011.org

A year ago, on October 2, 2010, a broad coalition held a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The organizers sought to use the rally both to demand jobs, protect Social Security, and advance a hodgepodge of progressive ideas, and also to cheer for the Democratic Party, whose leadership was not on board with that program. An independent movement would back particular politicians, including Democrats, but they would have to earn it by supporting our positions.

The peace movement was included in the rally, if not given top billing, and many peace organizations took part. We found that, among all of those tens of thousands of union members and civil rights activists who showed up, virtually all of them were eager to carry anti-war posters and stickers. In fact the message "Money for Jobs, Not Wars," was immensely popular. If anyone at all disagreed, I haven't heard about it. The theme of the rally was "One Nation Working Together," a warm message but one so vague we didn't even offend anyone enough to produce a counter-rally. I suspect more people would have shown up and a stronger message would have been delivered had the headline been "Bring Our War Dollars Home!"

One speech outshone all others that day. The speaker was 83-year-old singer and activist Harry Belafonte, his voice strained, scratchy, and gripping. These were some of his words:

"Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 'I Have a Dream' speech 47 years ago, said that America would soon come to realize that the war that we were in at that time that this nation waged in Vietnam was not only unconscionable, but unwinnable. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in that cruel adventure, and over two million Vietnamese and Cambodians perished. Now today, almost a half-a-century later, as we gather at this place where Dr. King prayed for the soul of this great nation, tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of life have come here today to rekindle his dream and once again hope that all America will soon come to the realization that the wars that we wage today in far away lands are immoral, unconscionable and unwinnable.

"The Central Intelligence Agency, in its official report, tells us that the enemy we pursue in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the al-Qaeda, they number less than 50 -- I say 50 -- people. Do we really think that sending 100,000 young American men and women to kill innocent civilians, women, and children, and antagonizing the tens of millions of people in the whole region somehow makes us secure?

"Does this make any sense?

"The President's decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion. That sum of money could not only create 600,000 jobs here in America, but would even leave us a few billion to start rebuilding our schools, our roads, our hospitals and affordable housing. It could also help to rebuild the lives of the thousands of our returning wounded veterans."

MSNBC has yet again implied that political criticism of Obama is racist after talking head Richard Wolffe mused that Republican opposition to Obama making a speech on a date that clashed with a presidential debate was down to “the color of his skin”.

“The interesting question is: What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President? Why do Republicans think this president is unpresidential and should dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events,” he stated.

Wolffe is an MSNBC regular, having appeared numerous times on Chris Matthews’ Hardball and previously filling in as a guest host for Keith Olbermann.

MSNBC has a history of race-baiting and attempting to characterize legitimate political criticism of Barack Obama as racist.

Back during the Obama Joker poster era, when depictions of the President as the fictional character out of Batman were deemed racist by the establishment media despite identical images being produced of Bush as the Joker for years before, MSNBC host Carlos Watson insinuated that calling Obama a “socialist” was secret code for a racist slur.

Responding to those questioning Obama’s big government agenda by labeling him a socialist, Watson wondered whether the term was “becoming a code word, whether or not socialist is becoming the new n-word for some angry upset birthers and others.”

Of course, playing the race card is a dirty and underhanded means of silencing dissent and it always has been. Disagreeing with when Obama times his speeches or his big government agenda has nothing to do with skin color.

The network is part-owned (49% to Comcast’s 51%) by one of Obama’s biggest campaign contributors, General Electric, which itself received $16 billion in federal bailout money, a story MSNBC’s hosts were keen to avoid.

Black caucus chair: We’d ‘be marching on the White House’ if not for Obama

Muriel KaneRaw StorySept 19, 2011

The Congressional Black Caucus is growing increasingly frustrated with a black unemployment rate of nearly 17% — almost twice the national average. Even the group’s chairman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), believes they’d already be leading a march on Washington if not for a desire to avoid weakening President Obama.

“If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House,” Cleaver told McClatchy Newspapers for an article published on Sunday. “There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.”

Tensions have recently been running high within the CBC, to the point where the group’s only Republican menber, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), threatened to quit after Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) said that tea party members of Congress “would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”

Cleaver, a Methodist minister who founded a Civility Caucus some years back, is known for his non-combative style and strong party loyalty. He recently told the National Journal, “I am convinced, irreversibly, that the lack of civility is causing most of the problems we have in our government. We’ve gotten to the point now where Republicans and Democrats have nothing in common besides being members of the ‘caustic caucus,’ and we can’t get anything done.”

MSNBC has yet again played the race card to demonize not even criticism, but merely unsympathetic portrayal, of Barack Obama as racist after an AP writer was lambasted for accurately transcribing Obama’s Black Caucus speech.

“On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama’s speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did–specifically including the “dropped g’s,” reports Yahoo News.

“Hunter called the AP’s version “inherently racist,” sparring with New Republic contributing editor and noted linguistics expert John McWhorter, who argued the g-less version “is actually the correct one,” noting that the president’s victory in the 2008 election was due, in part, to how effortlessly “he can switch into that dialect.”

It goes without saying that Hunter’s claim is completely ridiculous. Obama’s dropping of his g’s was blatantly deliberate. If the AP had “cleaned up” his speech it would have been completely misleading and inaccurate.

Hunter claimed the AP transcriber didn’t “fix” Obama’s grammar because of the color of his skin, while failing to mention the fact that transcripts of George W. Bush’s speeches were routinely transcribed (accurately) by including dropped g’s and other idiosyncratic styles of speech. She then ventured further into the realms of absurdity, claiming the AP writer was using a secret “code” through which to express his racism.

“Normally, I lean toward the clean-it-up school of quote transcribing—for everyone,” AP transcriber Mark Smith told Mediaite. “But in this case, the President appeared to be making such a point of dropping Gs, and doing so in a rhythmic fashion, that for me to insert them would run clearly counter to his meaning. I believe I was respecting his intent in this. Certainly disrespect was the last thing I intended.”

It’s not the first time Hunter has used her platform at MSNBC to imply a failure to observe complete obedience to Obama is racist. Two years ago, she said that people who “disrespected” Obama by being critical of his mandatory health care plan were racist.

As we have documented on numerous occasions, the establishment likes to play the race card in characterizing any criticism, or even any portrayal that could be considered unsympathetic, of Obama as racist. MSNBC has proven itself adept at this dirty trick.

During an appearance on MSNBC’s The Last Word recently, talking head Richard Wolffe mused that Republican opposition to Obama making a speech on a date that clashed with a presidential debate was down to “the color of his skin”.

Back during the Obama Joker poster era, when depictions of the President as the fictional character out of Batman were deemed racist by the establishment media despite identical images being produced of Bush as the Joker for years before, MSNBC host Carlos Watson insinuated that calling Obama a “socialist” to criticize his big government agenda was secret code for a racist slur.

Of course, the ultimate irony of all this is Obama’s attempt to come across as a working class black man by dropping letters as the end of his words. In reality, Obama’s background is about as ‘black working class’ as the Queen of England. He enjoyed a predominantly white, privileged, middle class upbringing and had none of the hardships of the black working man he tries so desperately to impersonate in a bid to re-connect with black voters who are abandoning Obama in droves.

In Portland, Oregon on October 10th, 2011, this unknown man attempted to crash a Tea Party gathering at Pioneer Square. Near the end of the video he attacks the videographer, attempting to steal the camera in the process (language warning).

Assignment: infiltrate the most powerful peaceful student organization in the U.S., Students for a Democratic Society, turn it into a violent organization -- aka The Weathermen-- AND ---CRASH THE PEACE MOVEMENT

NGO and foundations are ESSENTIAL to the Elite system of control,without them they are over!,including WWF,greenpeace,Seirra club,there are thousands of them lobbing the government on YOUR behalf.And the Government will only to happy to do what ever they say.They are the "pressure from below" element to the dialect.

Great post.

How many times have you heard on the news,such & such org wants this,on behalf of the people.9/10 times it is the Elite's OWN NGO or foundation.

Pressure from above,Pressure from below.

Logged

ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

IBM look Mao lookDoes Steve Jobs own other clothes? A RantSeriously. No, seriously. Has anyone outside of the 70’s seen this guy dressed in something other then his black mock top, jeans, and New Balances?

Logged

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Although an exciting political awakening is happening in the western world, the Establishment is trying to harness it for its own ends.

And if they cannot hi-jack this awakening, they will most certainly try to make it look bad. And if things come to this, we might see a new wave of bogus political radicalism appearing in Europe and North America.

Undercover police have even been caught on video breaking public and private property (Greece 2008). Masked undercover cops, some with clubs in their hand (Greece 2011), or dressed as a "black-bloc anarchist" (2010 Toronto G20), have been filmed crossng police safety lines.

In 2001 Genoa, Italy, the police planted petrol bombs in the facilities of student protesters during the G8-protests. They even staged a stabbing of a police officer as an excuse for use of force.

Undercover London cops tried to provoke protesters to throw things at the police during 2009 G20 protests.

..and these are just few examples of agent provocateur-cops in the western world.

"Strategy of Tension"

Staged security threats against the state are used to: Manipulate public opinion; as a smear campaign against political opposition; as a tool to restrict freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate; to establish state emergency; to start wars against another nation, and so on.

There appears to be a criminal element that has infiltrated the western security sector (police, armed forces, intelligence agencies, Pentagon, NATO ... who stage "security threads" whenever it is thought to serve the Illuminati agenda.

..and because some of these "rogue-agents" also sit at the very top of many of these security agencies, they can quite easily make it appear to be a good thing when police manipulates protesters and political groups into violence, or when they stage acts of terror themselves "..We do this to smoke out the radical element."

f you look into the Ergenekon-organization in Turkey, and the Susurluk-scandal, you will get a fairly good picture of how this criminal "shadow government" operates and how it is constructed.

During the "Years of Lead" in Cold War-Europe, a lot, if not most of the political terror was provoked, organized or even staged by these rogue -agents inside the western security establishment. These rogue-agents brainwashed and armed political groups to start violent street wars and to acts of terrorism against the state (..and private sector).They manipulated both ends of the political spectrum, left- and right-wing groups, to create this atmosphere of tension that lasted for decades, hence the name "Strategy of Tension".

Operation Gladio

"Operation Gladio" was a network of stay-behind armies, armed and trained by NATO-powers and their intelligence agencies. The Gladio-network had many arms caches hidden all around Europe in case of Soviet invasion ...Nothing wrong with that ..but sadly, it appears that explosives from these arms caches were used in terror bombings at least in Italy and West Germany

Here are some examples of western intelligence agencies' involvement in political terrorism starting from 1960's

It was Peter Urbach, apparently an agent provocateur working for West German intelligence (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV)), who radicalized young leftist prankster-groups to leave behind their "pudding wars", and pick up the Molotov Cocktails and bombs he delivered.

The “Occupy Wall Street”(OWS) movement emerged on September 17, when a group of people began rallying in New York's financial district to protest at 'corporate greed' and top-level corruption in the country.

The campaign has now spread to nearly 70 major cities, including Seattle, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Boston, as well as more than 600 communities across the nation. It is reportedly being supported through 'Occupy' events in close to 1,600 cities across the globe.

Press TV has conducted an interview with author and historian Webster Griffin Tarpley from Washington to further talk over the issue and get an analytical view point from him.

What follows is the script of the interview:

Press TV: Webster Griffin Tarpley, I'd like to get your reaction to some of the statements that have been made, examples as it has been said of the far right trying to frighten some of these protestors and everyday Americans.

Let's look at Congressman Eric Cantor inciting fear that it's the mob that is occupying our cities and then we had Glen Beck predicting that the protestors will come for you, drag you into the street and kill you. Why are you getting such reactions in your country as the examples I just stated and what do you make of that?

Tarpley: Part of it has to do with the tremendous programmatic weakness, the programmatic void of these demonstrations, the people running these things, and we know who they are, have insisted on leaving it all as a blank slate and naturally these reactionaries and proto-fascists that you mentioned are running to fill in the blanks, loony left and whatever else you can say.

I think this is the problem. This is a mass strike upsurge, and the problem with a mass strike upsurge is that the forces of the old order attempt to extend their social control over it and typically in the United States that means the foundations, that is the domestic counterinsurgency apparatus that Wall Street ultimately uses.

The foundation I think that has played the leading role here is Adbusters of Vancouver, British, Colombia, Canada and their operative or similar to them on the scene is a woman called Alexa O'Brien and they are ones who have imposed the idea that there should not be a program and instead everything has to go through this endless General Assembly that debates and debates and debates with filibusters and days go by and nothing is done.

They talk for hours about what to order for lunch and they have no demands and as long as it is a blank slate of demands, then these are the people who will come in. Now, a couple of examples on how this is dangerous: in Atlanta, their General Assembly did something, I think, was crazy and racist really.

John Lewis, of the Civil Rights Veteran goes back to Martin Luther King, who is the local Congressman, came to the Atlanta General Assembly and said I'd like to say a few words of greeting and they told him no. Their consensus was no. Now this is fundamental stupidity.

If you have a student-based demonstration, you have got to reach out to black working people and the way to do that is obviously not to insult one of their most respected representatives when he comes in twice to offer his support.

Second example would be important in Oregon. The people there say that the facilitators who actually control this thing, foundation funded facilitators in most cases, they say the government just is not to make decisions but only to have a satisfying discussion process, in other words, pure subjectivity for the people that are there and the public be damned, working people be damned and nothing for them.

The question is what are the fighting clash-based demands that you are willing to go for? Another one, this Nurses Union has been really the bright spot. It is called 'American Nurses United' and they have been agitating for what we can call the Wall Street Sales Tax, the Tobin Tax, the Transaction Tax.

You want to break the power of Wall Street? Great, tax them, their great advantages, they pay no taxes and above all they pay no taxes on their turnover and therefore the demand would have to be tax Wall Street one percent that ties it up in the package.

One of the demands that has come forward thanks to agitation by some of us is a Student Loan Amnesty to cancel one trillion dollars of high interest illegitimate student loan debt which is crushing the younger generation and I guess to put it together: have the Student Loan Amnesty now, cancel all those debts and pay for that so to speak with a one percent Wall Street sales tax, in other words, shift the burden of the depression on to Wall Street.

Doesn't it do any good to run around invading against the rich, making news very timid process demands about ending corporate personhood? This is not the problem with the American people. The American people want to know where is my job; how can I stop a bank from foreclosing on my house and stealing it? …

Press TV: This thing about silencing John Lewis, if we have a member of the Congress there being silenced, then what does show in terms of what is going to happen to the protesters out on the streets? How would the one percent want to use any tactics to silence? What kind of tactics would they use to silence the Americans and the protesters out on the streets?

Tarpley: With what they are using. They are using a bunch of anarchists and this Adbusters comes from the Situationist International. Situationist International was cooked up by NATO and the CIA back in the 1950s and 60s to overthrow General [Charles] de Gaulle of France who was the target at that time.

This whole apparatus of the General Assembly, the facilitators, the consensus, the voting, the human microphone; the leaderless group is a brainwashing technique; the human microphone is a brainwashing technique.

So what they are trying to do is they are sending operatives on the left cover to sabotage and destroy from within and unfortunately, a lot of the people who go to these things are very na?ve and they fall into it. What is needed is some kind of an organized force and I would hope trade unions would wake up to this maybe in the way that the nurses have.

Intervene in those General Assemblies, kick out the facilitator, go back to majority rule which is the only tradition we have here; majority rule and rights of the minority have to be respected and get a program…

Now that Ron Paul has made a strong showing in Iowa, the mainstream media monopoly has geared up to smear him as a “racist” and “dangerous man,” dredging up an old newsletter that was repudiated and debunked 20 years ago.

Paul, apparently, did not exercise vigilant editorial control over this newsletter, whose publisher has stated: “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

After this recycled smear, the Paul campaign released the video testimony of a black man, James Williams, who in 1972 could not get medical help for his ill pregnant wife “because of the difference, me being black and her being white.” The nurse in charge at the hospital even threatened to call the police as Mr. Williams became more desperately insistent. Finally, a young Dr. Ron Paul interceded to help the poor woman (she had a stillborn child), and made sure that the couple was not charged by the hospital. Mr. Williams now supports Paul’s candidacy.

I think this should settle the issue about Paul’s alleged racism, but more importantly we have a case of the kettle calling the pot black: The smears were recycled and propagated by Jamie Kirchick of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, another of the many warmongering Neo-con think tanks that hyped Saddam’s non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” and now cheerlead for yet another war against a more powerful nation — Iran. These policies have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of brown-skinned civilians over the last several decades. Where is the real racism in this debate? Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, spells it out:

“Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States. Any other Republican candidate or a reelected Obama will keep lying to Americans by claiming that we are being attacked because of our liberties, gender-equality laws, and elections rather than because of Washington’s constant intervention in the Islamic world. This now two-decade-old lie — which is abetted by most of the media — has hidden from Americans the fact that all of the would-be Islamist attackers who have been captured in this country were motivated by the invasion of Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, or some other U.S. government action in the Muslim world.”

Actually, this death-dealing intervention goes back more than two decades, to 1953, when a CIA-led coup overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh. For the next 25 years, we propped up the dictator Shah as he tortured and murdered thousands of dissidents seeking a democratic voice.

Next door, the CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein to power; administrations from both parties supported his brutal tyranny for years, even supplying him with the poison gas that he used on his own people, and encouraging him to attack Iran — a brutal war that killed and maimed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis.

The sanctions imposed on Saddam’s regime after the first Gulf War resulted in the deaths of some 240,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children, according to various estimates, mainly because water purification tools were prohibited as “dual use” technology. The U.N. Commissioner in charge of the sanctions, Dennis Halliday, resigned in disgust, calling the sanctions virtual genocide.

In the second Iraq War, about 110,000 civilians have been killed, and the country is now populated with innumerable widows and orphans. The slaughter continues in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with almost weekly drone attacks resulting in grisly “collateral damage.” Every now and then, our generals step down from their high horses and offer another humble apology. I recall the “mistaken” U.S. air strike in Bola Boluk, Afghanistan, in 2009; the body parts of 94 Afghani children were shoveled in graves. “So sorry,” our leaders say, again. And again. And we wonder why some people “over there” hate us?

Terrorism exists, because we continue to fuel the source with gallons of blood far exceeding the toll on 9/11. It is a vicious cycle that, after 10 years of costly battle, we can now defuse or continue to catalyze until we are both morally and financially bankrupt.

Alone in this campaign for America’s soul, Paul opposes another racist war: The War on Drugs, with its grossly disproportionate sentencing for different drug offenses, and the highest POW rate of any war in the world. America incarceration rates are the highest in our history, even as violent crimes have fallen steadily, at enormous social and fiscal costs. This war, too, is escalating — in Mexico, with disastrous results. Whole cities have been taken over by warring drug gangs, police are corrupted or murdered, and American ex-pats are fleeing, abandoning their homes as general crime skyrockets. The violence and corruption are blowing back across our borders.

The legalization of marijuana, but regulated like alcohol, would stop this hemorrhaging. Paul would also pardon all non-violent drug offenders, reducing this heavy burden on state and city budgets.

The racist mudslingers are triply hypocritical, as Paul alone has forged a bill to audit and establish congressional control over the Federal Reserve, after it supercharged the banking swindle that wiped out 53 percent of the median wealth of African-Americans and 66 percent for Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center.

Establishment Media: Critics of Obama Are Racists And Conspiracy Theorists

Saman MohammadiPrisonplanet.comFebruary 20, 2012

“The President just got in there. But in four years, will we still like him? In eight years, are we gonna still hype him? What if he says we’ve gotta go into Iran and kill a million people? Will you still be down with the man? You’d better wake up and smell the coffee.

"This is why the radio station don’t toss me. Me–and I’m on the microphone–I stand with people like Alex Jones. This is the truth I’m down with. I’ve never been about no f**kin’ government. I do for myself; speak for myself. Teach myself; reach for myself. Hip hop, you gotta do the same thing. Listen to me now, while I rap and sing. The New World Order just put on a black face.” - KRS-One, January 24, 2009.

Obama has a PR advantage over his Republican rivals because he is a black President. A Black President doesn’t get criticized by the left because he is black. They think that a black president can’t be an evil imperialist in the same way as a white president. I think that is one of the political codes in politically correct Washington.

In American politics, ambitious black politicians use the race card like it is a magic card. And it is. Being black in power is a good image boost, which is why Obama was handpicked to be President by the oligarchy during this time of trial and transition.

When Obama bombs Persia, Obama’s Zombies Will Say: How can Obama be evil when he’s black? Black presidents don’t start evil wars. Only white presidents do that because the white man is the devil.

When Obama bombs Persia, the Whores of the Media Will Say: You cannot call a black President evil because that makes you evil and racist. You’re only allowed to call white Presidents evil. Okay? Got that, slaves? You morons. That’s an American rule in American politics. Do not call the black man in the White House an evil scumbag, do not say he loves wars and mass death, or we’ll call you a racist.

When Obama bombs Persia, the Brainwashed Left Will Say: Bush bombed the Iraqis because he was evil and wanted oil, but Obama is bombing the Persians because he’s good and he wants to create world peace. And how do I know he’s good? Well, because he’s black. Good is written on his face. If I say he’s evil then that makes me a racist. And I may be blind supporter of a lying war criminal, but I am not a racist! I am a good liberal who loves everybody and everything. And I love my president because he is black, which means I have shed my white guilt. And those who criticize him are all racists and conspiracy theorists!

Obama is clearly exploiting his color to sell to the American people inherently evil policies. And his defenders in the press constantly use the race card to demonize Obama’s critics. Read the following articles:

The political narrative that Obama critics are racists and conspiracy theorists has been constructed and new layers of lies are constantly added. And these lies are coming from so-called liberals like Chris Matthews and the MSNBC crew.

The leadership of the Left in America and the West is filled with traitors, deceivers, and criminals. They want the American people to bomb Iran and watch World War III on television, and say that criticizing Obama’s World War is a 21st century form of racism. And brainwashed liberals feel fine about sleeping beside a mass murdering war criminal as long as he is black and he is not from Texas.

So bombing Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Iranians = fine and good. But criticizing a black president because of his criminal policies and his wars = racism. Wow, how deep the intellectual spirit of America and the West has fallen! Political correctness combined with totalitarian propaganda and mass ignorance have caused the death of America and the West.

But America and the West can be resurrected and revived. And for that to happen, we must stop allowing politicians, journalists, pundits, and newsmakers use the terms “conspiracy theorist” and “racist” as political weapons to divide and rule, and smear their democratic critics.

Defining and clarifying the words that we use is important, especially in a time of war and crisis. If the war criminals in Washington can get away with defining any political criticism of President Obama as racist hate speech and crazy/conspiratorial, then they’ll get away with anything, including carrying out false flag attacks, starting a nuclear war, and even genocide.

Imagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ‘Whites for Ron Paul’ – he’d be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ‘African Americans for Obama’.

The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.

Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

“I thought race didn’t matter Mr. President?” asks Chad Hasty. “I don’t think MLK would be too pleased with you at all. African-Americans for Obama? Give me a break. Under this President, more blacks are unemployed. More blacks are on food stamps. If I had to bet though, Obama will still pull 93% of the black vote. Again, just a wild guess.”

As part of his efforts to lock down the black community as a voting bloc, Obama has arrived in Florida accompanied by an invasion of rappers and NBA basketball stars – all at taxpayer expense.

“The group — which organizers said includes Magic Johnson, Alonzo Mourning and NBA Commissioner David Stern — will meet with President Obama for a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at the (actual) home court of Dallas Mavericks guard Vince Carter in his Isleworth mansion,” reports the Orlando Sentinel.

The expensive fundraising trip is timed to coincide with Sunday’s 61st NBA All-Star Game at Orlando’s Amway Center.

An expensive new basketball shoe launched to capitalize on the event caused mayhem at a Florida mall last night. Riot police were called after crowds attempted to rush into a branch of Foot Locker to purchase the shoe before closing time.

To all you self-righteous, insult-spewing, race-obsessed “liberals” out there who shamelessly wrap in the flag of “anti-racism” virtually each and every corporate fascist economic policy, Bush-style police state policy and imperialist foreign policy the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House propose, perpetuate or expand, I have a few questions for you:

Angelia Jolie openly works for the UN and CFR pushing globalist wars under the cover of humanitarian intervention.

Drunk on the blood of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and scores of other nations Jolie is now pushing military invasion to “help” Africa. She and her masters know full well that they are carrying out destabilization operations in the 3rd world so population can be reduced and resources stolen.

We need to call a spade a spade, this is part of a new branding rollout to launch a AFRICOM take over of Africa. This constitutes a crime against humanity and Jolie is a party to it and needs to be arrested along with other globalist that are using left cover to widen globalist empire.

The problem is you can’t go to the UN because it is at the center of the corporate global government takeover, the people are asleep and wars are being launched against innocents in the name of a bleeding heat liberal agenda. THEY COME IN PEACE!